HomeMy WebLinkAbout0551.093~,
• 0 .....
, '(,1 • ,~": .
october 21, 1993
HONORABLE CITY COL~CIL
Palo Alto, California
PROPOSEP CH]aJiGES TO ~AR1SING I.OTS P AN[LB
Members of the Council:
AnORT 1:)1 II1l1:EF
9
In response to a request from ROGS Stores, the city council, at its
meeting on september 27, 1993 t considered a proposal to make.
changes in the number of 2-hour and permit parking spaces in
parking Lots P and R (see Attachment 1, CMR!507!93, 9/23/93). Due
to concerns expressed in the for:m of letters, petiticl'ns, and verbal
comments, by property and business O¥lners as well as downtown
employees, Council directed staff to hold a public meeting wior!':!
interested parties to discuss alternative plans for such chanqes~
A public meeting 'W'as held on october 7. 1993 with 13 attendees
representinq property owners. business owner-5 , and downtown
employees. ~he discussion at the meeting covered a b~oad range of
parking issues and seemed to focus on tour alternative plans
(identified as Plans A, B, C , OJ for Lots P and R.
Staff recommends that the council indicate its agr~ement to make
the following changes (Plan B) to parking L~ts P and R, and direct
staff to prepare an apprepriate resolutio~ to accomplish that end:
1-Lot P Conver-t from 55 permit spaces
~o 55 2-hour spaces.
2. Lot R Convert from H 2-hour spaces
to 36 2-hour and 38 permit spaces.
Staff also recommends that council require that Premier properties
(1) pay for all signing and striping changes related to the
proposed chanqes to Lots P and R. and (2) pay for all striping
changes related to providing additional space.s (up to 5) in Lots P
and R.
CMR:551:9)
.J
r ,
I
.'
•
Furthermore, staff recommends that Council direct staff to make an
evaluation of additional secur i ty lleeds and other possible
measures, as well as appropriate funding mechanisms, to improve the
utilization of Q Garage; and finally, staff recommends that Council
refer this matter to the Policy and Services Committee.
IIltoCJ:GROUJlJ)
As 3 condition of its lease fer retail use of a 35,000 square foot
building at 180 University Avenu€~ Ross stores has requested that
all but 12 of the 55 parking spaces in Lot P be converted from
permit (employee parking) to 2-hour (custo~er parking). Exhibit 1
illustrates the eXisting size and parking designation for Lots p
and R •
Based upon an interest in responding to the request from ROSS
stores, coupled with a concern for maintaining a reasonable balance
between permit and 2-hour pa~king, as well as a realistic approach
to ope~ational aspects that do not contuse and/or trap users l staff
proposed a plan (Plan A) to convert Lot P (55 total spaces) to 36
2-hour spaces and 19 permit spaces, and to convert L~t R {74 total
spaces) to 51 2-hour spaces and 23 permit spaces~ The combined net
change would be an increase of 13 2-hour spaces and a corresponding
decrease of 13 pe~it spaces for Lots P and R combined~
At the time of the COUncil meeting~ an alternate plan (Plan B) ~as
presented by area business representatives, along with a petition
signed by 60 businesses located within the immediate area of Lot P
(alonq Hamilton, High, and Emerson) supporting their alternate.
plan. Plan B would convert Lot P to 55 2-hour spaces (no permit
spaces) and convert Lot R to 38 permit spaces and 36 2-hour spaces
(74 total spaces). The combined net change would be an increase of
17 2-hour spaces and a corresponding decrease of 17 permit spaces.
Council then direct~d staff to hold a public meeting ~ith
interested parties to discuss alternative plans for changes to Lots
P ana R, and to return the item to the COUncil ~ithin a one month
time period.
PDIILIC HEETING
A public meetinq was held on Thursday, October 7, 1993 in the
Council Conference Room, with 13 attendees representing property
o~ersl business owners and downto~~ employees. A meeting notice
(Attachment 2) had been mailed to each of the current Lot P permit
holders and persons on the wait list, as well as to individuals who
submitted letters and petitions. A meeting notice had also been
hand delivered to each business located within the area bounded by
Alma, UniversitYI Emerson and Hamilton. A total of approximately
lOa notices was distribu~ed either by hand or via mail.
CMR:551:93 10/21/93
page 2
.~ .
"
'r.;
/'
o
The public meeting WI"',S one of informal discussion among stter.dees
regarding their opinions and concerns about the two plans {Plan A
and Plan 8j, as ~ell as other plans and variations thereof. Whi!e
the ~eetin9 did not result in a consensus of support for a single
plan, some observations that can be drawn from the dj scussion
include the following:
.1. There was total aqreenent that the under-utilization of Q
Garage tall permit spaces) due to vandalisrr. of vehiclp.~ and
the intimidating presence of pet"sons using the facility tor
non-parking related purposes, must be corrected thr01Jgh
providing whatever additional s~curity is needed to create a
sefe, non-threatening en" .. ironment.
2~ There was total agreement that parking supply in the downtown
area, be it permit or 2-hour, is sericusly deficienti and the
City should take steps to develop additional parking supply,
on both an interim (temporary use of vacant lots) and long
term (new parking structure) basis"
3. The~e were a number of other parking concerns raised,
including the non-transferability of permits, shortening the
time period (8 a.m. -6 p.m.) during which permit parking is
applicable, the nQed for improved signing, and the use of 2-
hour customer parking by employees .and business ,owners who
move their cars~
4~ There seemed to be some general agreement, albeit not
complete, that it would be better to have all of Lot P as 2-
hour parking and have Lot R absorb the permit spaces that ar~
to be provided, rather than having a mix of both permit and 2-
hour parking in both lots.
5. There was a clear and firm ditfer~nce of opinion regarding the
relative importance and need for pe",it versus 2-hour parking,
as well as strong insistence by some individuals about the
importance of parking, permit or 2-hour, b~inq located
immediately adjacent to an individual's particular interest
point, as opposed to being located across High Street or in
some more distant portion of a given parking lot.
ALTERNATIVE PLANS
From. the discussions at th~ October 7 public meeting, there. appears
to be four alternative plans to the existing configuration, for
consideration. These have been labeled as Plans Ar B, C & D. They
are illustrated in Exhibit 2, summarized in Table 1, and described
as follows:
Plan A is the earlier staff proposal presented in the September
23. 1993 staff report (CMR:507:9J). Plan A would convert
Lot P (55 total spaces) to 36 2-hour spaces and 19 permit
spaces and convert Lot ~ (74 total spaces) to 51 2-hour
CMR:551:93 10/21/93
page 1
•
LOT P
Hjgh Street
-----~--------
I '''~''H .• ~" ..... ~ •.• il I 2·""". I·~O~. I-~o~.
~ LOT R I 1 I': :~.~:. ~i :!'~:'l
I I I 4 t:
Alms Street
EXHIBIT 1
Existing Conditions
TABLE 1 S~~~ OF AL7E&~A~IVES
FOR PAR1<ING LOTSP&R
LO'T P LOT R TOTAL
Permit ,Cl!= 'p'e.Gij i t .l.=.h9'J ~ permit 2-h9J:1X
ExiE;ting 55 0 0 74 55 ?
Plan A 19 36 n 51 42 B7 ± 13
Plan B 0 55 Ja 36 38 91 ± 17
Plan C 0 55 50 24 50 79 ± 5
Plan D 19 36 30 44 49 80 ± 6
r-------------~_J------------------~()~----------~
High Stu: e r
LOT R
Alma Street
Plan A
.. ...... " ....... , ........ .... "". ~ .~p ..~,,~~
t I t
Hi9ll Street
R
Alms Street
Plan C
LOT P
I
I I ,-OT , ,
I
EXHIBIT 2
" h .... J'~"','~
---I
" ...... , "0""
~_._L_ t
High Slreer
'r-, fl
'~h ............ " .... .. . ~.~~~~ ""<l~~ ~ .00"
R
Alma Sfreet
Plan 8
Hj~1l Streer
Alma Street
Plan D
LOT P
. . ' ~'
/-",
spaces 21nd 23 permi t spaces. The combined net change
would be an incr€a~e of 13 2-hour spaces and a corres
ponding decrease of 13 permit spaces. Plan A has a mix
of permit and 2-hour par~ing in both lots, and changes
the balance between permit and 2-hour parking by J)
spaces in favor of 2-hou~.
Plan B is the proposal developed by area business represen
tatives and presented at the September 27 council
meeting. Plan a ~ould convert Lot P to 55 2-hour spaces
(no permit spaces) and convert Lot R to J8 permit s~aces
and 36 2-hcur spaces {74 total spaces). The combined net
change 'Would be an incre,ase of 17 2-hour spaces and a
cor~esponding decreas~ of 17 per~it spaces. Plan B has
a mix of both permit and 2-hour sp~ces in only one lot,
places 2-hour spaces il\ the more convenient locations and
permit spaces in the less convenier:t locations. and
changes the balance between per~it and 2-hour parking by
~7 spaces in favor of 2-hour.
Plan C is a variation of Plan S. One additional pa~king bay in
Lot R would be permit parking with the intent to better
maintain tne existi ng balance between the number ot"
permit and 2-hour spaces. Lot P would be all 2-hour
parking. Plan C would convert Lot P to 5S 2-hour spaces
(no permit spaces) and convert L~t R to 50 permit spaces
and 24 2-hour spaces (74 total spaces). The combined net
change would be an increase of 52-hour spac9.s and a
corresponding decrease of 5 permit spaces. Plan C has a
mix of both permit and 2-hour spaces in only one lot,
places 2-hour spaces in the more convenient locations and
permit spaces in the less convenient locations, and
changes the balan~e cetween permit and 2-hour parking by
only 5 spaces in favor of 2-hour.
Plan 0 is a variation of Plan A. The location of one of the
permit parking bays is relocated to a different location
i~ Lot R, with the intent of maintaining 2-hour parking
alonq the entire length of the antique store. It also
better :mainta1ns the existing balance between the number
of permit and 2-hour speces. Plan D would convert Lot p
(55 total spaces) to 36 2-hour spaces and 19 permit
spaces and convert Lot R (74 ~otal spaces) to 30 permit
spaces and 44 2-hour spaces. The combined net change
would be an increase of 6 2-hour spaces and a corres
ponding decrease of 6 permit spaces. Plan 0 has a mix of
both permit and 2-hour parking in both lots, and chanqes
the balance be~ween permit and 2-hour parking by only 6
spaces in favor of 2-hour~
CMR.:55.1:93 10/21/93
page 6
•
o
Recognizing that it is not possible for staff to adequately
summarize the preferences and serious concerns expresse-d by the
individuals attending the public meeting (due in part to the fact
that, a~ times, the preferences and concerns tended to reflect the
particular interest of each individual attendee), the following
characterizations are presented as st~ft opinions;
a. Businesses along Emerson j High and Unive.":sity appeared to
favor more 2-hour parking and more convenient locations for
2-hour parking (i.e. Plan B).
b. Office workers on TJniversity appeared to favor IT'Iore pC!rmit
parking as well as, for convenience, the location of Slome
permit parking in Lot P (i.e. the arrangement that currently
exists or Plan D).
c. Property owners appeared to favor ~ore nearly reaintai~in9 the
existing balance betv..'cen pertllit and 2-hour-spaces {i. e. Plan C
or Plan OJ-
d. A lriedical service provider favored maximizing 2-hour parking
immediately adjacent to his office access off Lot R (Le.
Existing or Plan Bj.
e. The Antique Unlimited representatives favored 2-hour parking
along the. entire length of their-store (Le. plan D).
f. Through a sUbsequent conversation, a representative from
Blockbuster Video indicated that their preference was to
maintain &aximurn 2-hour parking i~rnediately adjacent to their
store (1. e. Existing).
cmrCLUSIOI/S
Based upon the discussior.s re'3"aI:ding the proposed changes to Lots
P and R, the follo~ing ~onclusions seem evident:
1. The City must provide improved sE>c-urity for Q Gar<'lge in order
to inc~ease parking utilization by permit holders.
2. The Cit.y s.hould take steps to develop additional parking
supply on both an interim and long-term basis.
3. There are
addressed
presently
a number of other parking concerns ~hat can best be
in conjunction with the parking referral item
before the policy ana services Committee.
CMR:551:93 10/21/93
Page 7
-.~--..-~"-------
. \
. -.
·~.-.
.~'
4~ Most people seem to agree that it ,,",ould be better to hollVe all
of Lot P as 2-hour parking. This is the nore convenient lot
for customer parking and ...... ould reduce the number of mixed
(permit and 2-hour) lots.
5. Thera are strong differences of opinion as to the relatiVe
importa.nce of 2-hQur versus permit parking; thel'efore, the
significance of losing 13 to 17 permit spaces (Plan A and Plan
B) versus losing 5 to 6 permit spaces (Plan C and Plan D) is
viewed as being very important. Hot,,/ever ~ staff does nct
bel~eve that this difference, in the context of ~ther
available parking in the surrounding ared~ is likely to have
serious consequences •
Based upon consideration of having the more convenient spaces for
2-hour parking, the desirability of rnini~izing the number of mixed
(permit and 2-hour] lots, and a commitment t.o impro~.re utilization
of permit parking in Q Garage, staff supports Plan 6 as the
preferred alternative. Plan B also provides significant 2-hour
parking immediately adjacent to a main entry point for Antiques
Unlimited, Blockbuster Video 3nd other Uni versi ty Avenue busi!'lesses
who have an existing access point from L~t R.
I~ the incremental loss of 12 (5 versus 17} permit spaces is judged
to be of serious consequence, then Plan C would be the preferred
alternative.
IDIVIROHMEllTAL AS8l!lSSKEIIT
This project is categorically exempt under tne California
Environmental Quality Act~
Staff recommends that the Council indicate its agreement to make
the following changes (Plan B} to parking Lots P and R, and direct
staff to prepare an appropciate resolution to accomplish that end:
1-Lot P Convert from 55 permit spaces
to 55 2-hour spaces.
2. Lot R convert from 7' 2-hour spa!ces
to 3. 2-hour and 38 permit spaces.
staff also reco~ends that Council require that Premier Properties
(1) pay for all signing and striping changes related to the
proposed changes to Lots P and :R, and (2) pay for all striping
chanqes related to providing additional spaces (up to 5) in Lots P
and R.
CMR:SS~:93 10/21/93
Pa.ge B
./-.~
o 0
Furtnermore, staff reeolt-mends that Council direct staff t':l make an
evaluation of additional security needs and other possible
measures, as veIl as appropriate funding mechanisms, to improve the
utilization of Q Garage; and finally, staff recommends that Council
refer this matter to the Policy and Services Committee~
Respectfully submitted r
--Chief Transportation Official
BERN~~ M. STROJNY
Assistant city Manager
'1,-'r~-K. &-/V-A.-<.--U .. U,-<v
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
ana community El1vironment
Attachments: 1. CMR:507:93, September 23. 1993
2. Public Meeting Notice
cc: P~lo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Charles Keenan
Warren Thoits
Jim Baer
Craig Trimble
Fred Dueball
David Turner
Faith Bell
Jim Gibson
PQul Hefferman
Stephanie Elkins
Theresa Marcroft
Bennie Parish
Bob Moreno
Janice Parsons
CMR:SSl:93
•
10/21/93
Page 9
•
september 23~ 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
PROPOSED CHABGES TO PARKING LO~S P AND R
Members of the Council:
REPORT nr BRIEl'
ATTACHMENT 1
Pre~ier properties, is about to enter into a lease ~ith RQS~ stcres
for retail use of its existing )5,000 square foot building at 180
University Avenue. As a condition of the Lease, Ross·Stores has
requested that all but 12 of the 55 parking spaces in Lot P bs
converted from permit parking to 2-hour customer parking. Jim
Baer, representinq Premier Properties, has had discussions with
city staff regarding this matter, and has now made a formal request
to change Lot P in a l~tter to Council Members dated September 2,
1993 (Attachment 1).
Based upon an interest in responding to the request from Ross
Stores, coupled with a concern for rnain't-aining a reasonable. balance
between permit and 2-hour parking~ as veIl as a realistic approach
to operationa~ aspects that do not confuse and/or entrap users f
staff recommends that the Council indicate its agreement to make
the following changes to parking Lots P and R, and direct staff to
prepare an appropriate resolution to accotrtplish that end:
Lot P Convert from 55 PERMIT spaces
to 19 PERMIT spaces and 36 2-HOUR spaces.
2. LotR Convert from 74 2-HOUR spaces
to 51 2-HOUR spaces and 2) PERMIT spaces.
Staff also recommends that council require that Premier properties
(1) pay for all signing and striping changes related to the
proposed changes to Lots F and :R~ and (2) pay for all stripin9
changes related to providing additional spaces (up to 5) in Lots?
and R.
BACKGROtJ1ll)
At th~ present time, parking Lot P has 55 spaces, all of which are
designated as permit spaces. Directly across High Street is
CKR:507:93
•
. \.,
.'
. \
,I
parking Lot R with 74 spaces, all of which are designated as 2-hour
customer parking. The location, size and parking designation for
these two lots, plus the other 17 public parking lots/garages in
the downtown area, are illustrated in Exhibit 1.
fhe existinq arrangement ot location and desiqnation of permit and
2-hcur spaces throughout the downto~n are3 ~as last re-established
in the fall of 1987~ It was done in response to one of the parking
related recommendations of the Downtown studYr approved by Council
in July ~986t which "Was to separate short-term (2-hour) and
long-term {permit) parking spaces by parking facility, as well as
the. overall goal of using the most convenient spaces for customer
2-hour parking, and the less convenient spaces for employee permit
parking. That recommendation grew out of Up.n negative experiences
stemming from having a cc~bination of both permit and 2-hour spaces
in most of the lots. Having beth types of parKing in the same lot
caused confusion, uncert~inty and ongoing complaints about tickets
received by customers who thought they were parking in a 2-hour
space but had wandered into a permit space. By separating permit
and 2-hour spaces by lots entry signing and regUlatory signing
within the lot is consistent throughout each lot. Exceptions
continue to exist in Lots K and T, Lot C, the We~ster-Cowper Garage
(separation by floors) and the Civic Center Garage. Where the mix
of permit and 2 or 3-hour parkinq spaces still exist, confusion and
complaints have bean minimized by having full sections (parKing
bays or floors) serve one type of parking and using improved
regulatory signing (permit (red] and 2:-hour rgreen]) and
informational signing.
COIIBIDBRATrONS
1. Staff believes that the addition of Ross Stores would be o£
ccnsiderable benefit in terms of the activity and vitality in
the downtown area, and therefore, consideration of some change
to Lot P is warranted.
2. parking is an important and valuable factor for all types of
businesses in this area and changes made to accommodate a
particular user or interest is a benefit to that party.
3. The request is for a change in the mix between the number of
permit spaces and the number of 2-hour spaces, and has no
effect on the total number of spaces.
4:. Each property owner. business owner, employee and customer has
their individual perspective on the importance of permit
varsus 2-hour parking, based upon the particular type of
activity in which each is involved.
C!m:507:.3
-,.
./23/93
Page 2
. . ~
0-.,.
~" "w
~.
rr 11 2' r.il~ ,-4C~ .....
r;~~ ~S1;;
~" ~
IF
;
g
~:
.~ ". ~~
5
c------
I ~ -. ... i
:;
-§ .
"
a:
fo
--'
o EXHIBIT f
J
-,
~
t . ~ ~ ,.
~t: ! ~ e5 'v " t ." ~ "''=> , c_
~ ~ ~~ . n
~ tJ<
0 " ~=
~ ''''<:: ,
"" • " ":;2
0 0 <l
5.
r
• / -
' .. ~'
Any such cha~ge# while precipitated by Ross stores,
fact be equally available and useful to everyonf"!
surrounding area, and is not for the exclusive u~e
stores~
vill in
in the
of .Floss
6. The request is to change all but 12 of the existing spaces in
Lot P from permit to 2-hour. Howeve~~ op~rational aspects of
the parking lot layout require that, unless the whole lot is
converted to 2-hour parking, at least one full bay should be
retained as permit parking. Oth-enlise, as past experience has
demonstratea, the confusion and uncertainty about ..,here to
park will result in ongoing customer complaints about ticKets
received.
PROPOSED CHANGES
Based upon an interest in responding to the request from RDSs
Stores, coupled with a concern for m~intaininq a reasonable balance
between pe~it and 2-hour parking, as veIl as a realistic approach
to operational aspects that do not confuse and/or trap user6, the
followinq chang~s are proposed:
1. LotP convert from 55 PERMIT spaces
to 19 PERMIT spaces and 35 2-HOUR spaces.
2. LotR Convert from 74 2-HOUR spaces
to 51 2-HOUR spaces and 2) PERMIT spaces.
The co~ined net change will be an increase of 11 2-hour spaces, a
decrease ~f 13 permit spaces, and no change in the total number of
spaces.
The intent for Lot P would be keep the parking bay at the southern
end (nearest Hamilton Ave) 8S permit spaces and convert the other
two parkinq bays to 2-hour spaces. The intent for Lot R would be
to convert the middle and southernoost short bays (off High street)
to permit spaces and keep the remaining bay off High Street as well
as the two bays off Alma Street as 2-hour spaces (Exhlbit 1).
h~ile some pr~sent Lot P permit holders may need to park in Lot R
(directly across High streetj I the effects of attrition and the
temporary short-term cessation of permit sales ~ill ensure that
current permit holders ~ill not be displaced from parkinq in that
immediate area (e.ither Lot P or R). About 10 permits are sold each
quarter for Lot P which is more than sufficient to account for a
reduction of 13 permit spaces between no~ and the time that the
parking lot changes would likely be implemented (February or Karch
1993) •
CMR:507:93
---~
9/23/93
Page 3
o
The costs associated ~ith the proposed changes to Lots P and Rare
pri~rily related to addjtional signage and changes to some
existing siqng~ and should ~e the res~nsibility of Premier
Properties.
The~e proposed changes evolved out of discussions-..... ith Charles
Keenan, and Warren Thoits. as well as Jim Baer and appear to have
their support. staff has sent a notice (At'!ach.."ent 2) of tbe
proposed chan~es and the date of Councils consideration of sucn
changes to each of the current Lot P permit holders as well as
persons present.l}~ on the wait list for Lot P. Statf also hand
delivered the notice to each business located 'Within T.he ar'Ea
bounded by Alma, UniversitYf Emerson and Hamilton. staff will
provide a summary of the information received as a result of this
notice l at the time Council considers this matter.
OTKER COKSIDERATIONS
In addition to the items directly related to th~ proposed changes
to Lots P and R as presented in the previous two sections of this
staff report~ several related matters that ~arrant some discussion
include the following:
First, Jim Baer has indicated that the lease with Ross Stores will
include a provision requirinq its employees to park in the Webster
cowper Garage or the spaces the City has available at the H.oliday
Inn site. This would somewhat r~duce the demand for permits in
this area and better utilize permie parkiny spaces at locations
where they are presently available~
Second, past effo~ts have identified the possibility of gaining up
to five ad:ditioTial parking spaces in Lots P and R by r-e-striping
existinq 5talls~ This work would be done in conjunction with the
proposed changes in the number of permit and 2-hcur spaces.
Third, the Council has recently referred a number of operational
type parking matters to the Policy and Services committee arid the
matter of a ne~ ~arking structure to the Finance Committee, for
discussion, evaluation and recommended actions. While the pr-oposed
changes to Lot P and Lot R cannot (due to timin~) and need not {due
to small impact) be delayed until such referrals are fully
considered, there is a process set in motion to address a broad
range or actions to improve parking in the downtown area for both
customers and employees.
Fourth, concerns have been raised about the under-utilizaTion of Q
Garage (all permit spaces) due to vandalism to vehicles and the
intimidating presence of persons using the facility for non-parking
related purposes. Similar conc€rns are periodically expre.ssed
concerning the Webster-Co .... -per Garage. The cost of providing
additional parking in the downtown area is so high that every
CMR:501:93 9/23/93
Page 4
'----------
•
, ;:-,' .'
/ -.
"',/', . .c-,,,', __ ._~ __ ,,,-,-_.
reasonable effort must be made to fully utili~e existing parking
spaces, including whate.ver additional security is needed to provide
a safe, non-threatening environment. Stat! suggest that council
direct stat.! to make an e''1aluation of additicnal security needs and
other possible measures that wOllld iD.Lprove the utilization ot Q
Garage and the Webster-Cowper Garage and refer this matter to the
Policy and Services Committee, in conjunction with the recent
referral of other operatic~al type parking matters for the downtown
area.
RECOMIlIDitlA'l'IO)l
Staff recommends that the council indicate its agreement to make
the following changes to parking Lots P and R and direct staff to
prepare an appropriate resolution to accomplish that end:
Lot P Convert f~om 55 PERMIT spaces
to 19 PERMIT spaces and 36 2-HOUR spaces.
2, LotR Convert from 74 2-HOUR spaces
to 51 2-HOUR spaces and 23 PERMIT spaces.
Staff also recommends that council require that Premier Properties
{1~ pay for a.ll signing and striping chanqes related to the
proposed chanqes to Lots P and R~ and (2) pay for all striping
changes related to the provision of additional spaces (up to 5) in
Lots P and R~
Respectfully submitted,
~~tLft
Chief Transportation Offieidl
~~cLv~
KENNETH R, SCHREIBER
Director of Planning
and Community Environment
Attachments: 1. Letter from James E. Baer to Council Members
dated september 2. 1993.
2. Notice of proposed changes to Lots P and R
CC: Palo Alto Cham.ber of Commerce
Charles Ke.enan
Warren 'l'hoits
Jim Baer
0IR:507:9) 9/2)/9)
Page 5
.
September 2, 1993
80507-902000
Council Member>
Re; Lot P Parlring For Ross Stores
Dear Council Member:
Premier Properties is about to execute a long~tenn lease with Ross Stores for our 35,000
foot buDding located al 180 University Avenue. Ross Stores wiH lease tbe base:ment, first and
second floor. In conjunction with its occupancy of the building. Ross Stares will greatly beautify
this importanl property. p
~ a condition to e~Jlg into such a Lease, ROS!= Stores requires that all but 12 of Ihe
5S parking spaces in Lot It be converted from permit parking to Z hour free parking by the date
of its opeIring on Pe'bruar)! 1, 1994. Other retailers near Lot P will also benefit from this
cttanse·
One 0( the provisions of the Chamber of Commerce Twelve Point Parking Plan was to
reallocate spaces in surface lois as parking uses and demands shift. Suc.i a reallocation is
important to Lot P.
The problem is to fairly pnase out 0; relocate the holders of permits at Lot P.
About 2Q permit holders 'Nill discontinue their parking permits due to oU!" termination of
tenancies at 180 University Avenue. Ross Stores, as an element of its Lease, will require its
employees to park at Lot WiC or the Holiday Inn. This "'ill help with some parking demand at
Lot P. This provision is in our eltecuted Lease with Ross Stores.
However, it will be necessary to make sure that ~rmjt holders and future holders arc
not withOllt acceptable alternatives. CertainTy some permit spaces (but nOI tao many) can be
shifted to lot R. Lot CC can handle more permits because about 60 permit spaces are
available at any hour according to recent surveys. Lm Q must also be made more effective.
This underground lot is not wei] used because of vandalism to vehicles, and the daunting
presence of transients and drug users. Lot Q has about 40 unused permit space. according 10
recent surveys.
~J ~ StrM. P.ale ~llu. C."'i(urnl.a 94.)01 41:;. J 2:; • ., 7.8 i F .. ~; 4 l :; ,325. ~ J b"
• 7'; __ ----
,
. ,
·~-"--,,. -, '", :;.---.-r
Lot Q should be made effective ru a part of the Lot P conversion. Cleaning ~nd brighd.'i
painting Lot Q and providing a s.ecl:rity guard will provide great ulilization of Lot Q .
Downtown buswC'sscs cannot afford to have Lot Q under-utilized. There are Si50,OOO of funds
available (or the assessment district (Lot J's lease payment is res.erved !or us.es. within tbe
assessment district). Perhaps a portion of these funds could be u~d at Lot Q to experimenr
with a weekday security guard and some painting and cleaning.
Is it reasonable to schedule discussion of this matter during September so that Ross
Stores can open this winter?
P1ea.se call me if J can provide further information.
JEB/sb
<co June Fleming
Ken Schreiber
Mal\'in Overway
Sincerely yours,
•
.-'"~-~.-------,.---
o o
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO
PARKING LOTS P AND R
\-
At the prese"t time, parking lot P has 55 spaces, all of which are designated as
PERMIT spaces. Directly across High Street is parking lot R with 74 spaces, all of
which are designated as 2-HOUR customer parkir.g. The location, size and parking
designatkm for these two lots, plus the other 17 pubiic parking lots and garages in
the downtown area, are illustrated on. the reverse side of thie noticB.
Premier Properties tS about to enter into a lease with Ross Stores for retail use of its
existing 35,000 square foot building at 180 University Avenue. As a condition of the
lease, Ross Stores has requested that all but 12 of the 55 parking spaces in lot P be
converted from PERMIT parking to 2-HOUR .o:Jstomer parking.
Based upon an interest in responding to the request from Ross Stores, coupled with
a concern for maintaining a reasonable balance between PERMIT and 2-HOUR
parking, as well as the need for a realistic approach to operational aspects that won't
confuse andlor entrap users, the following charlges are proposed:
1. lot P : Convert from 55 PERMIT spaces
to 19 PERMIT spaces arld 36 2-HOUR spaces.
2. lot R Convert f'Om 74 2-HOUR spaces
to 51 2-HOUR spaces and 23 PERMIT spaces.
Included on the reverse side of this ootice is an illustration of which sections of Lots
P and R would be deSignated for PERMIT and 2-HOUR parking.
Th" Palo Alto City Counct7 will consider these proposed changes to Lots P and R as
a regular 8genda item stits meeting on Monday. September 27. 1993. At that time,
there will be an opportunity for any member of the public to speak on this matter.
Written comments can 3f50 be provided, either in advance of the meeting, 0( during
the public comment period fer this agenda item.
A staff report on this topiC will be avail&ble in the Transportation Division office,
6th floor, Civic Center, 250 Hamilto" Avenue, Palo Alto, after 8:00 am on Friday,
September 24, 1993.
if you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Ashok
Aggarwal, City Traffic Engineer at 14151329-2575.
•
"
.'
'> -,
CORRC'cTED NOTICE
Please Note Meeting Time
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Regarding Changes to Lots P and R
October 1, 1993
ATTACHMENT 2
The City Council in its meeting of September 27. T 993 considered a
staff proposal to convert the 55 permit spaces in lot P to 19 permit
spaces and 36 2-nour spaces; and to convert the 74 2-hour spaces in
Lot R to 51 2-hour spaces and 23 permit spaces (shown as Plan A on
the back of this notice).
This proposat was not well received by area business representatives
who were present at the meeting. They would prefer converting the 55
permit spaces in Lot P to 55 2-hour spaces, and converting the 74 2-
hour spaces in Lat R to 36 2-hour spaces and 38 permit spaces {sMwn
as Plan B on back of this notice}.
The City Cour'lcfr did not endorse either plan, but directed staff to discuss
both plans with area business representatives and return to CounCil w'ith
a staff recommendation, within one month.
In order to further discuss Plans A and B and seek public input, a public
meeting has been arranged for 7:00 p.m. Thursday, October 7, in the
CouncH Conference Room, first floc;', Civic Center, 250 Hamilton
Avenue. We urge you to attend this me~ring if you are concerned about
changes-to Lots P and R.
Following this public meeting, staff will send a report to the City Council.
CounCil will consider changes to lots P and R as a regular agenda item
at its meeting on Monday, October 25, 19.93. A copy ofthis staff report
will be avaifable in the Transportation Division office. on the sixth floor.
Civic Center, after 8:00 a.m. on friday. October 22.
In the meantime, if you have any Questions, please contact Ashok
Aggarwal at 329-2575,
--~-----"
\\/.,,'
u
_ ~ l--I
I
-,
iii
11 8pu ••
~-... OUR
t
11 Opu ••
2:~HoIJR
~
High Street
'--1-: ~
, ... ".J pt;flMIT
t
tl
t3 8pl.a.. '2 8plllo.. n 5plllcl ..
Q~HOUA pERMIT P'IiRI.IIIT
16 8p.c •• 20 $"lIICllII I
L~'"" '"~J
Alma Street
Plan A
LOT P
LOT R
tQ 4".0 •• 11 8"110.' It 8pn ••
III-HOUR 2-MOUA t-I'OUR
L ~ t
High Street
~ ~ t
1;) $paO" 12 all'OII 11 S"ac,.
2~HOlJR 2~HOUA 2 r HOUA
L-__ -;j .... u _
18 apao,.
PERMIT
20 8pec ••
PERMIT
I ~ : fJ
Alma Street
Plan B
c=J PROPOSED CHANGES
LOT P
i~r--
,-
, ": ' , >
). \
LOT R r,,,_ '
I
'\,
•